INDUSTRIES 



he would date the paper some time after the 

 date of this Act. If this is so, we must assume 

 that Thomas Elrington had erected another 

 mill in the county in addition to the one he 

 became possessed of in 1558, as this would 

 hardly be said in 1581 to be lately erected. 

 Probably however we need not put too much 

 emphasis on the words * late erected.' They 

 are perhaps merely descriptive of the mill, the 

 real enormity complained of being the great 

 consumption of timber, which was the offence 

 indictable under the Act especially mentioned. 

 Moreover Thomas Elrington does not seem to 

 have been in occupation of the mill so late as 

 1 58 1, if indeed he was then alive. As a 

 matter of feet an information was actually 

 lodged against him in the Exchequer in 

 Trinity term, 1566, for that he had since 

 I July 1565 converted into coals for the 

 making of iron twelve hundred oak and beech 

 trees in certain woods in the parish of Abinger. 

 Abinger, being within fourteen miles of Wey- 

 bridge on the Thames, was claimed to be a 

 place within the meaning of the Act, i Eliza- 

 beth.* 



The list of 1574 is obscure as to the owner- 

 ship of these ironworks. It has in one place 

 'Mr. Elderton one forge in Sheere,' and 

 further on ' Mr. Ellington a forge in Shere 

 in Surrey.' Another list of the same date has 

 Elkington, whilst the list of the Loseley MSS. 

 of later date but seemingly in most respects a 

 copy of the earlier list, has both Elderton and 

 Ellington. But for the fact that there are 

 other instances in these lists where the same 

 works have been given twice, we might sup- 

 pose that there were two distinct forges in 

 Shere in the occupation of two different iron- 

 masters. This however seems unlikely, for in 

 the list of those who were summoned before 

 the council to take their bonds the names of 

 Elderton and Ellington or Elkington nowhere 

 appear. There is however a Mr. Elrington 

 who had a forge in Shere.' He took his 

 bond on 5 March 1573—4, when he signed 

 himself 'Edward Elryngton." He was no 

 doubt that son of Thomas Elrington who is 

 mentioned in the deed of 1557 as having the 

 reversion of his father's moiety in the manor 

 of Paddington. 



Of the later history ot this mill we know 

 little. It is probably to be identified with 

 Abinger Hammer, a name which survives to 

 this day, as it is here that the map affixed to 



* Exch. k. R. Memo. R. Trin. 8 Eliz. 93. 

 Thomas Elrington is here described as of Willes- 

 den in Middlesex. 



2 S. P. Dom. Eliz. xcv. 61, 79. 



3 Ibid. xcv. 41. 



Aubrey's book marks ' Sherehamer.' Pro- 

 bably also it is the mill to which John Evelyn 

 refers in his letter to Aubrey, and which was 

 still remaining in his day. Manning and 

 Bray say that the iron hammer mill was at 

 Abinger < till of late years,' but this some- 

 what indefinite statement does not necessarily 

 imply that it had been actually worked with- 

 in their recollection. As was the case with 

 some others of the iron-mills in Surrey, the 

 mill at Shere or Abinger was applied to other 

 uses on the decay of the old industry. 



Haslemere and Pophall. — ' Item another 

 new furnace set up in Haslemoore by my L. 

 Montague which as yet hath never wrought 

 and whether they shall blow sows for iron or 

 ordnance I know not.' Here at any rate the 

 industry was a new one in 1574. The state- 

 ment appears in the introductory remarks of 

 the survey, and in the list that follows we 

 have, incorrectly, under Sussex, 'the L.Mon- 

 tague one forge and one furnace in Haslemore 

 and thereabouts, also a furnace called Pophall.' 

 The Lord Montague was Anthony Brown, 

 first Viscount Montague of Cowdray. He 

 was amongst those ironmasters warned to ap- 

 pear before the Privy Council and to take 

 their bonds, but apparently he did not respond 

 to the summons, with what consequences we 

 know not.* The works in the neighbour- 

 hood of Haslemere are probably those which 

 we are told he had about this time set up on 

 leasehold land at the south corner of Imbhams 

 Farm, his furnace being supplied by Imbhams 

 Pond. The Quenells had become the free- 

 holders of this site, and eventually Lord Mon- 

 tague was succeeded as ironmaster at this 

 furnace by Robert Quenell, who died in 16 12. 

 Robert's son Peter raised the family from its 

 yeoman state, and this Peter with his son of 

 the same name appears to have been a staunch 

 royalist during the troubles of the Civil War, 

 and, as long as he was permitted to do so, to 

 have made guns and shot for supply of his 

 majesty's stores.® In Hilary 1603-4 we hear 

 of an offence under the Act of 27 Elizabeth 

 committed at Haslemere. Edward Tanworth 

 of Tillington in Sussex was charged with 

 having since i February 1602-3 erected a 

 ' blomarie ' or hammer upon a certain place 

 within the parish, where there were not 

 standing any old iron-mills and not being up- 

 on any ancient ' bayes or pennes.' He 

 pleaded not guilty and elected to go before a 

 jury, and we are left in doubt as to the final 

 result ° of the case. Aubrey mentions iron- 



* Ibid. xcv. 61. 



5 Rev. T. S. Cooper, Sun: Arch. Coll. xv. 40-2. 



« Exch. K.R. Memo. R. Hil. i Jas. I. 1 54. 



271 



